JUDGMENT
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. The prayer in this writ application is to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 21.12.1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in Misc case No. 17/92-93, as contained in Annexure-3 and for restraining the respondent No. 5 from transferring/selling lands which is used for place of worship and burial ground.
2. The petitioner No. 1, describing himself to be the Secretary of Charakpuja Samiti has filed the present writ application.
3. According to the petitioners, the plot No. 454 of Jamabandi No. 47 measuring 13.15 acres of village. Raghuadih Garsara P.S. Palajori, Dist. Deoghar has been recorded “Charakthan” during the last survey settlement and the said land is being used as a place of worship by Hindu Community of village Raghuadih Garsara and adjoining villages where they are performing Charakpuja from time immemorial over the said land and a portion of the said land is also being used as burial/burning ground.
4. The further case of the petitioner is that though the name of Hari Kishore Prasad Singh is there in the Khatian since his ancestors were the Ghatwar (Jamindar) of the said land but he never came in possession of the same. He had no male issue and had only one daughter Tara Devi who after her marriage never kept any concern with the said village or the lands in question and she was never in possession thereof. It is alleged that the respondent No. 5 Mukul Prasad, who is claiming to be the near relation of the last intermediary of Garsara Taluque, was going to sell the land in question at a throw away price in order to hurt the sentiments of the Hindu community and made attempts to disturb the “Charakpuja”. It is stated that in the year 1991 to resolve the dispute between the respondents and other villagers a compromise was arrived at with the intervention of the administration wherein it was decided that the villagers will to hold “Charak Puja” over the portion of the land and rest portion can be used by the owner of the said land, but again dispute arose in the year 1992. The Circle Officer of Palojon reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar that the land was being used as a “Charakthan” for “Charakpuja” and also a Burial ground in part of it. The Circle Officer also reported that under the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act the land was not transferable. The said report of the Circle Officer has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the present writ application. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, by order dated 21.1.1996 in Misc. case No. 17/92-93 after considering the respective cases of the parties and also the relevant documents, held that the land in question was a raiyati land of Malik and the respondent No. 5 was the raiyat of the land under Section 23 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The Deputy Commissioner further held that the nature of the land in question was not “Charak Than” but it was only its name and not its nature.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5. The case of the respondent No. 5 is that the writ application was not maintainable because the petitioner had no right to challenge the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. It is further stated that the prior to filing of the present writ application, the respondent No. 5 has already executed the sale deed in favour of 13 persons on 3.1.1997 itself and the petitioner having full knowledge about the execution of registered sale deed. According to the respondent No. 5, plot No. 454 area 13.15 Acres i.e. disputed land was previously under Sarath Sub-Division Madhpur and was recorded as Kamat in the name of Hari Kishore Prasad Singh, Ghatwal of Garsara Estate. The said Ghatwal of Garsara Estate vested with the State on 1.1.1956 and on such vesting Hari Kishore Prasad Singh became the statutory tenant with the occupancy of right under Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and thereby he acquired the right of transfer under Section 26(A) of the Bihar Tenancy Act. Takur Hari Kishore Prasad Singh died leaving behind only a daughter who also died leaving behind Shyamanand Prasad Singh whose name was mutated in the year 1972 and respondent No. 5. Mukul Prasad is the son of late Shyamanand Prasad Singh. He and his predecessors all along paid rent to the State of Bihar and they remained in cultivating possession over the land in question. He having full right, title and interest over the land in question, has already transferred the land to different purchaser by registered deeds of sale prior to the filing of the writ application.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and carefully consideration of the respective case of the parties, I find that the nature of dispute involved in the present case, cannot be decided in a writ petition as it requires adjudication on the question of title, which cannot be gone into by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot nullify the sale deeds executed by the respondent No. 5. This Court also cannot go into the vexed and complicated question of title as involved in the present writ application.
7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed, but without any cost.